Talk:Gospel of Mark/Archive 1

Dating
Regarding the dating: The prophecy in Mark 13 could be taken as evidence that it was written after 70 AD, but on the other hand, prophecies made up after the fact are usually a bit more accurate; this passage predicts that the Temple would be torn down entirely ("there shall not be left one stone upon another", in the KJV) when it was actually burned, incompletely. E.P. Sanders (The Historical Figure of Jesus, pp. 255-257) has more to say about this section -- he thinks it's an authentic prediction. --MIRV 18:10, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Since someone has debated the burning of the Temple, changing "it was actually destroyed by fire" to "others claim that it was destroyed by fire", I'll clarify: the account comes from Josephus, who was present at the siege of Jerusalem (see and the rest of book 6 of the Jewish War). Is there any reason -- archaeological evidence, perhaps -- to question his version of events? --MIRV 07:18, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure, one should question everthing, especially things written by religious apologists. Anthony DiPierro 07:24, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is not relevant to the dating question whether or not the Western Wall is torn down in the future; the point is, prophecies made after the fact (see Daniel, for example) usually don't contain glaring errors. Mark 13 does make a mistake, and the otherwise identical passages in the other Synoptics do not. --MIRV 18:08, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * What is the mistake? As to whether prophecies made after the fact contain glaring errors, that's quite possible.  Maybe the writer of the prophecy didn't know about the specifics.  Ever think of that?  This whole section is really quite pointless.  You basically go on and on with supposed "facts" which really show absolutely nothing. Anthony DiPierro 18:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * The mistake is in the details of the destruction of the Temple, and the claim is not mine (see the reference to Sanders above), unlike your additions, for which you have not provided any kind of reference. If one version of a prophecy gets the details wrong, and other versions don't make the same mistake, that strongly suggests that something changed between the time that Version 1 (Mark) and Versions 2 and 3 (Matthew and Luke) were written down. --MIRV 18:51, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And about Josephus: His numbers and dates are sometimes doubtful, yes; he's too ready to make apologies for Judaism and his Roman patrons, yes; but there's no good reason to doubt the factual accuracy of his report on the burning of the Temple, considering that A: he probably saw it happen and B: no historical or archaeological records contradict him. --MIRV 18:22, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * If you're going to use statements which are supposedly attributed to him to try to prove something about when something was written, you certainly need to doubt this. Furthermore, adding the reference to where this information is obtained subtracts absolutely nothing, and only adds to the article.  You need to think about that before censoring my additions. Anthony DiPierro 18:43, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Show me something that contradicts Josephus. Something like "Philiobiblios of Alexandria, first-century Hellenistic historian, reports that the temple was destroyed by undermining" or "Professor Thomas McGuirk has dug up Roman pickaxes and shovels from under the Temple ruins, but has found no evidence of the fire reported by Josephus"; some kind of reliable reference. Without that kind of evidence, there's no reason to doubt him; and attributing a claim too specifically, when there's only one source available, creates doubt where none exists. Your doubts (and mine, for that matter) are not worthy of inclusion in the article. --MIRV 18:51, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, according to your own statements, Mark 13 contradicts Josephus. So there's "something" for you.  As for attributing a source when only one is available creating doubt, now you're contradicting yourself.  If there's no evidence to the contrary, why would the lack of more than one source create doubt?  Maybe because one single source is not very trustworthy?  Doubts are not being included in the article.  They are up to the reader to make or not make.  I am simply adding information about the source of the assertion. Anthony DiPierro 19:02, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Mark 13 may contradict Josephus, but it's not a first-hand historical account of the war, and it was almost certainly written before the Jewish War (Matthew and Luke don't contradict Josephus in any way, note). Josephus may be the only source for these events, but you have yet to demonstrate that the burning of the Temple is in any way disputed. Also, other evidence (Suetonius, the Arch of Titus) bears out the rest of his reports on the sack of Jerusalem; why do you question this specific part? --MIRV 19:11, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Read NPOV tutorial; Josephus' account is not disputed, except perhaps by you. --MIRV 18:53, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm adding information. You're subtracting it.  You are the one who needs to justify your deletion.
 * I already have. If you say "Josephus says that X happened" when there is no reason to doubt that X happened, you create the impression that there are other points of view on this issue, which is simply not true. --MIRV 19:01, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * The reason to doubt that X happened is that it is only attributed to a single source. A single source should always be doubted.  I create no impression that there are other points of view.  I merely state a source. Read the newspaper some time, it's done all the time.  "People magizine reports that Britney Spears got married Wednesday."  Does that express doubt?  Sure, to some extent.  Does it imply other points of view.  No, it doesn't.  Anthony DiPierro 19:05, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * But other parts of the source are confirmed by independent accounts. Why is this specific part in doubt? --MIRV 19:11, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * From NPOV tutorial: "Cite a source of the claim if it is surprising to readers, very specific, or if a source is asked for on the discussion page. I want a source.  Case closed.  Anthony DiPierro 19:14, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

From NPOV tutorial: "Cite a source of the claim if it is surprising to readers, very specific, or if a source is asked for on the discussion page. I want a source.  Case closed.  Anthony DiPierro 19:14, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So there's no contrary evidence; okay, that's what I thought. The source is now cited properly, in a way that does not imply that any other points of view exist. --MIRV 19:38, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In any case, the destruction in question may well refer to that of 135, which also fits the prophecy well, if not better, than 70. That would resolve the whole issue of the 'not dead-on prophecy'.

from article


 * (This looks like some pretty sloppy math! How can 145+60= 406?!! Is anyone awake out there? Watch this one! Let's see 15 Apr 04)

406 with both Matthew and Luke, 145 with Matthew alone, 60 with Luke alone; add 51 unique verses, and you get 662. There's no problem. &mdash;No-One Jones 19:29, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Missing text surfaces in Clement's "Mar Saba" letter
I didn't revert the recent Anonymous editing, but I've made numerous edits I hope will be judged individually. Wetman 00:56, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have reverted these two statements from an anonymous user: "The option that these are "well crafted forged additions" orginating from a later time in the 2nd century is not discussed at all." The lines in question were deleted because they refer to a deleted episode. The result is a well-established lacuna or "hole" in the text, which has been noticed by commentators for centuries. The canonic text is the edited version, with this text deleted. This user has not reread Mark 14. Should the logic of the missing text be more extensively treated in the entry? Or will Christianists with this kind of agenda then remove the whole discussion to a separate entry? "There is the possibility that texts may have varied in different locales through out the ancient world." This is just sand in our eyes. No information in this statement. Wetman 18:25, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ending of Mark 'The oldest extant manuscripts do not contain these verses [16:9-20], yet we know they existed.' Is there any explanation for *how* we know this, and perhaps who 'we' are?


 * I agree with these changes. Also, I have removed the following as unencyclopedic:
 * Why does the storyteller do this? Must the identity of Jesus come from the listener? If so, the short ending is the perfect hook. Who is Jesus? Is Mark written in present tense for an immediate listening, now reading, audience? Was Mark a woman? Mark's women show wisdom and courage. Only women stayed true in Mark. There has been much discussion about mythology. Have we overlooked the wonder tale?
 * If there's a way to rewrite this into non-questions and useful info, feel free. Quadell (talk) 12:54, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Vaticinium ex eventu
I'm not convinced of this phrase's legitimacy as proper Latin, even as a neologism&mdash;Google returns 566 hits for it, but none are especially credible, and the most prominent are posts to listservs questioning someone's misspelling of the phrase (as its initial addition to this article was). Ex eventu, lit. "from an/the event," is essentially "after the fact" with an especially strong implication of the subject's role as the cause; this actually is a popular usage. The other half of the phrase, vaticinium, is where we run into some difficulty.

Simply put, I can find no reason for this word to be. Similar words with sensible meanings exist, such as vaticinatio (3 n., "prophecy") and vaticinum (2 adj., "prophetic"), but none of the Latin word-building rules with which I'm familiar could result in such an odd construction. I admit that it's entirely possible that I've forgotten or am ignorant of some subtelty of Latin that allows this word to exist, but I get the distinct impression that this is at best an ecclesiastical neologism spawned by some dope in the Vatican, or perhaps some elaborate hoax, albeit with no readily discernable intent. Whatever the case, I invite your scholarly illumination.

Austin Hair 23:19, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Info from Lewis & Short. Adam Bishop 23:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Adam; I should've thought to check Perseus for L&S. I can rest easy knowing it's precedented, if extremely rare, though I'm still a bit fuzzy on the semantics.  Austin Hair 23:55, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Charateristics
Markan peculiarities.

I have a problem with this phrase: "Jesus is not yet known as the "crucified savior"—that theology is yet to come, courtesy of Paul."

It does not make sense because Paul wrote before GMark. How could this theology therefore not yet have come to pass?

I have a couple of problems with the following text, part of which I have edited out:

Other characteistics unique to Mark:
 * Only in Mark does Jesus address himself, except for once, as the Son of Man.
 * The testing of Jesus in the wilderness for forty days contains no discourse between Jesus and Satan.
 * Jesus heals using his fingers and spit. (7:33)
 * Jesus must lay his hands on a blind man twice to cure him.(8:22)
 * There are no favorite disciples.
 * In Mark Jesus is "killed" on the cross. He is not yet known as the "crucified" savior. This theology is yet to come courtesy of Paul.

The first assertion is clearly completely wrong. Just a glance at the other synoptics demonstrates this (e.g. Mt. 16:27; 17:22-23; Lk. 9:58; 12:40; 18:31-34). The second is correct, but since Mark clearly precedes both Luke and Matthew, surely the question should be "why do Luke and Matthew include discourse between Jesus and Satan?", not why Mark excludes it. The author of Mark cannot exclude it if they are not aware of it!

Points three and four are fine, though in my opinion they would be better set in the context of a sub-discussion about Christ's ministry in Mark. Point five depends on your definition of "favorite" - indeed, is Mark interested in portraying "favorites"? I would contend not: if anything, the author seems content to show Jesus' closest followers as a little dim (e.g. 7:33; 9:18-19, 38-41; 10:13-16; and crucially 14:32-42). This point holds even more if one accepts that Mark finishes at 16:8, with no resolution or concern for any of the twelve disciples!

Finally, and probably most seriously, if one accepts a date of c.70AD for Mark, this postdates Paul. Therefore, the theology of Christ as the "crucified savior" is already knocking around! It is in no way "yet to come". I find it incredibly unlikely that Mark was written in complete ignorance of Paul's thoughts. --MHazell 02:40 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Name-dropping
" The later theory was championed on a historical-critical level by J.J. Greisbach in the 19th century, but was dealt a near death blow by H.J. Holzmann immediately prior to the 20th. While not without its own difficulties, the "Two-Document" (Mark and Q) hypothesis proposed by Holzmann and, most famously, B.H. Streeter has held great weight among scholars (liberal to conservative) for nearly 100 years. Attempts by figures such as William Farmer to revive the Greisbach hypothesis have largely failed, as it raises significantly more problems than it solves." --Does the Wikipedia reader get any information out of this inflated name-dropping? --Wetman 22:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You bring up a good point, but my opinion is that information is good, and that information is often tied to specific individuals. My hope was not incessant name-dropping, but giving the reader "clues," so to speak, about where to look for further information.  Perhaps I have gone too far here - I'm in the thick of researching this stuff on the collegiate level right now, so my perspective regarding density and language is probably not too good.  Nevertheless, theories have a history, and that history is tied to specific individuals who deserve credit (or cursing :).  I won't be offended if these names are removed...but the theories behind them is solid.  Best, --Jcdavis 22:27, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and actually tell the story. Report the developments. Give the reader some telling quotes. Don't just present your favorite conclusions. Let the non-committed reader follow the reasoning and draw her own conclusions. Space and time are available: this is not a paper encyclopedia. Mark is an important text. Try to compensate for your own "earliest possible date" bias: it casts all the rest in an unfavorable light... --Wetman 16:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * A raft of further edits by User:Stephen C. Carlson in this inflated style haven't made the entry more accessible: "...despite William R. Farmer's attempt to revive the Griesbach hypothesis in 1964." The suggestion is, that if the reader doesn't know what the "Griesbach hypothesis" is, she shouldn't be reading this entry at all. The contributor would be upset to be informed that this practice is arrogant, I imagine. --Wetman 09:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I cut out most of the names because they were wrong (Griesbach was not Augustinian; Holtzmann's work in 1863 is not "immediately prior to the 20th century."; etc.). My priority is to "get it right" first.  Fixing the link to Griesbach hypothesis (the closing brackets were misplaced) should help the confused reader; that's what links are for.  --scc 18:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * --the result was a deadend link, and "J.J. Griesbach" had been edited to "Griesbach." Opaque to the general reader. Made me quite cross (and much too harsh)... --Wetman 00:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Markan priority among the Synoptics
I think this paragraph belongs further down. It is rather complicated and more for the specialists. --Harnack 11:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Good thought. Moving from general to specific... --Wetman 00:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Audience for Mark
Can someone smarter than me expand this interesting point? "The audience for Mark seems to have experienced some persecution, and would have been expecting more." It needs at least a quote from the text, for the reasoning is not obvious to the average reader. --Wetman 00:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Mark 13:9-13 and 8:34-38 are the typical passages cited for this opinion. --scc 01:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Shall I edit this into the article? (For the Reader: Two oblique references to Mark are made. One refers to the descriptions of coming persecutions in the approaching "End Times," part of the so-called "Little Apocalypse" of Mark 13, consisting of words put into the mouth of Jesus as prophecy, but actually reflecting the first organized Christian persecutions under Nero, in 65 A.D. The other reference, however, is to a more general passage, which contrasts the worldly and the spiritual life, without any overt reference to persecutions whatsoever:  "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.  What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?  Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?..." Such are the references. When texts are quoted simply by "chapter and verse," the cautious listener returns to the text itself. --Wetman 02:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC))


 * It's up to you if you want to put it into the article. As for the issue in the aside, Wikipedia would probably benefit from having some way to easily link to specific verses in the Bible as well as other ancient literature.  --scc 03:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edited the "Audience" section: it didn't seem to give an entirely NPOV, as it previously started off "Mark is a Hellenistic gospel". The section now acknowledges some of the difficulty of establishing from the text a totally Gentile audience for Mark. --MHazell 02:50 08 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I made a few tweaks for improved balance and clarity. Mark, in common with the other synoptic gospels, uses the O.T. in the Greek translation of the Septuagint: referring to "Hebrew Scriptures" while one is downplaying the Hellenism of Mark gives a misimpression. A "totally" Gentile audience for Mark is of course not ever the question. --Wetman 04:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Re. "Hebrew Scriptures" - thanks. My bad!  --MHazell 08:27 08 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Matthew's priority asserted
I've moved these unwarranted assertion here for discussion:"(Mark is second because Matthew was more popular. The grand teachings in Matthew, especially the sermon on the mount, were thought to be Jesus's words, accurately recorded. Matthew must have been written first. Mark's language and text were thought to be primitive and inferior by the early church). " --Wetman 23:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wetman. I disagree with you. I think it is of interest to explain the traditional reason why Mark is the second gospel in the popular printed four gospel sequence; and why Matthew is the first. I couldn't think of a better place than here, at the introduction to the Gospel of Mark. What do you do, check every entry to Mark? Why? Your hobby too? How come I don't see any entries by wikipedian professional biblical scholars? Do they see this stuff as incredulous? If you're a smooth talker, which I ain't, nobody questions you're validity, motives or sources? Charlie charlesturek@comcast.net 15 Feb 2005


 * I believe the early church saw Mark as an abridgement of Matthew, hence the canonical ordering. The assertion "Matthew must have been written first" is very POV.  At any rate, the considered evidence clearly points to Markan priority as opposed to Matthean priority.  I agree that the early church's opinion is interesting, and certainly the question "why was Matthew seen as more interesting?" needs to be asked, but I'm unsure it belongs in the Gospel of Mark entry - what about the Markan priority entry? --MHazell 02:17 17 Feb 2005


 * If certain figures in early Christianity saw Mark as an abridgement of Matthew, then one of them would have said so. That would be the only reason for crediting this interpretation. A note based on a quotation would be worth entering in Wikipedia. I wouldn't spend much time looking for one however. The question "why was Matthew seen as more interesting?" does not actually need to be asked, until some early writer can be seen to have actually found Matthew more "interesting, and to have said so." Then we may well ask why, not in our terms of what's interesting to us, but in his terms. The rest is crackerbarrel theology, based on idle speculation without any historical basis. MHazell's suggestion that Markan priority is the best place for these speculations, if they could be made more concrete, is a very sensible one.--Wetman 02:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Guess you got me, guys. My stuff would be better under the entry of "Gospels". The explanation for the order (8 of them) etc. can be found in The New Catholic Encyclopedia under the entry of "Gospel and Gospels". This certainly fits in with my knowledge of the ancient church writers. Trust me on this one, Catholic Bible Scholars are pretty sharp. And why not: they copied all those ancient documents by hand for centuries. I've learned a lot by reading a few things here and there. Thanks for your kind replies and interest. I have a tendency to wander off in different directions. It's just my way. Oh yeah,info is from 1909, probably a bit dated. New Encyclopedia??? Charlie. 17 Feb 2005
 * The intellectual context of the Catholic Encyclopedia is very lightly touched on at Modernism (Roman Catholicism): worth considering the atmosphere of 1908-10 in which it was compiled. Charlie, I hot-linked your reference. The official RC view is that, of the eight early variations on the order of Gospels, Jerome got the right one! (More astonishing if they said he didn't eh?) At any rate MML&J has that order because it's Jerome's order in the Vulgate&mdash;and of course in selected earlier codices of the complete gospels, though not in others. (Log in Charlie: you'll get a Watchlist!) --Wetman 20:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Wetman for the info on RC modernism. I never knew much about the pioneers. Too long ago one of my neighborhood priests lent me a pair of books by Marie-Joseph Lagrange and told me they had to be smuggled into the USA. I was surprised they were so conservative. I've had some wonderful teachers. It is too bad a new idea is one of the most dangerous things in the world. Charlie 17 Feb 2005
 * Charlie, I've redlinked Lagrange as a reproach to you, that you should Google him and, from what you already know and what you can find out, do a bio on Lagrange. --Wetman 00:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New edits
I've made a bunch of edits that I hope will be judged one at a time. They are meant to distinguish Mark from Mark, to identify, disambiguate and link offhand references, to more fairly characterize the scholarship and its bases, to apply logic more explicitly etc. I have deleted a couple of bits that offered no concrete information but posturing. Please continue to edit not revert in the collegial atmosphere that has, generally speaking, been built up at this entry. --Wetman 23:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)--Wetman 23:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Good edits. I was tweaking the characteristics at the same time as you were making your edits, so merged the (small) changes I made. The only major thing I removed from 'Characteristics' was Only in Mark does Jesus address himself, except for once, as the Son of Man, which was added back in by 68.41.141.167 a few hours ago. I wouldn't mind, except for the fact that, as I have previously demonstrated above, it's completely wrong!  --MHazell 23:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Title: "according to"
The Greek – in the case of all four Gospel accounts – has kata, Latin secondo, both meaning according to. In other words [The] Good News according to .... There is a lively discussion as to the genre of the Gospels, hence their precise title, while not original but very early all the same, may be considered significant. (It is easy to see, why one often encounters of, even in scholarly writings ... it is 9 characters and 1 space shorter, and rolls better off the tongue.)Portress 03:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As you suggest, the applied titles are simply a convention. A Wikipedia reader who enters Gospel According to Mark is already redirected to the page. The link "What links here" at the left of the article page will show you the links that would need to be fixed, before you moved on the the other gospels, in order to maintain consistency. Then you'd be renaming the Gospel according to Thomas too? And Gospel of Peter? The "according to" is a rather specific assertion, which doesn't always hold up to critical analysis. --Wetman 04:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Shared verses don't seem to add up
It says in the article:

Out of a total of 662 verses, Mark has 406 in common with both Matthew and Luke, 145 with Matthew alone, 60 with Luke alone, and at most 51 peculiar to itself, according to a common concordance.

Unless I misunderstand the way these are counted, this cannot be correct. The number of verses common with Matthew alone and with Luke alone should be equal or less than the number in common with both. Junes 13:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I get it now. I was reading 'alone' as 'when compared only with'. Obviously, in this context, it means 'it is in this gospel but not in the other one'. D'oh! The wording is fine. Junes 14:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Clever implication
Notice, in this text: "There was some dispute among textual critics in the 19th century as to whether 16:9-20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, were actually part of the original Gospel, or if they were added later." how smoothly the reader gets the impression that that's all over now. The instinct for dishonesty runs perilously close to the marrow in this field. --Wetman 20:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Instinct for dishonesty"??? Stephen C. Carlson 00:27, 2005 September 12 (UTC)


 * Stephen C. Carlson's supercilious query here might have seemed disingenuous to those of us who recognize the recent author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark&mdash;a book that, if it proves to be accurate, essentially demolishes the intellectual reputation of Morton Smith, and if not... well, truth will out. I must be mistaken to sense that there so often seems to be an unspoken subtext or a covert agenda, Mr Carlson, if that is indeed you: perhaps you would you like to expand on my phrase "instinct for dishonesty" and show us how wholesome and authentic your query was? And how rare hoaxes and inventions really are in this field... --Wetman 16:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mark and Midrash
Can someone expand or clarify this?Mackm 21:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Midrash is the act of creating or embellishing a story by drawing on the Old Testament. Extensive use of this is made of in the Gospel of Mark. There are actually several ways it is used. In some cases the OT provides a paralleling framework for a story text, the way 2 Kings 4 is the source for the healing of the dead girl in Mark 5. Another way it is used is to provide a backbone for the gospel. Brodie has argued that the Elijah-Elisha tale provides the framework backdrop for almost the whole gospel to chapter 11. Still another way is when the writer uses Jesus' actions to fulfill "messianic" prophecies. For example, there is no specific parallel to the claim in Isa that the blind shall be healed and the lame walk, but such events are shown in the gospel. Hope this helps. If I get the chance I'll input some examples later this summer. --Michael Turton 11:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A needed subsection: Latinisms of Mark
"The Rome-Peter theory has been questioned in recent decades. It is argued that the Latinisms in the Greek of Mark &mdash;once seen as an indication of Roman provenance&mdash;could have stemmed from many places throughout the Western Roman empire." The wiser readers note the tell-tale "passive of non-attribution" employed in this piece of transparent special pleading. Latin literature was simply not being produced in Syria or in Alexandria in the late first/early second century, quite simply because it would have found few hearers. Official inscriptions are not literature. A couple of concise attributed quotes might clear this unintended obfuscation.

The average Wikipedia reader asks these straightforward questions: "What kind of grammar or vocabulary reveals itself as a 'Latinism'? Why do Latinisms identify the source of texts? What regions would Latinisms in any text indicate? On what, specifically, are counter-arguments based?" Straightforward answers would be a courtesy to the reader. --Wetman 23:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
Does anyone know why User:Satanael put the NPOV Tag on the page, but no discussion on the talk page? Can we remove the tag, or is someone going to make a case for POV? --Andrew c 03:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOV Tag removed. If someone disagrees with this action, please explain the POV here on the talk page. --Andrew c 17:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

1st century manuscripts?

 * For instance, Mark 1:1 has been found in two different forms. Half of the discovered texts before the 2nd century contain the phrase "Son of God", while half do not.

Posters at Internet Infidels Board find this statement dubious: there are no complete manuscripts of Mark's gospel from before the 4th century, fragments were quoted by church fathers in the 2nd century (and the earliest fragments do not cover Mark 1:1), and we have no references from the 1st century ("before the 2nd century"). - Mike Rosoft 22:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could re-edit the text and remove the tag. --Wetman 10:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Either somebody got the century wrong, or the passage is completely incorrect. Since I am not an expert on Biblical criticism, I'll leave it for others to correct. - Mike Rosoft 08:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Three manuscripts lack "son of God" in Mark 1:1. They are: Codex Sinaiticus 01 (4th cen.), Codex Koridethi 037 (9th cen.), and Minuscule 28 (11th cen.).  The "half" statistic is only correct for the 4th cen., since the other 4th cen. manuscript of Mark, Codex Vaticanus has the text.  (P45 is 3rd century, but its portion containing Mark 1:1 has not survived the ravages of time.)  It is possible to correct the statement to read before the 5th century, but, though technically correct, the revised statistic is misleading because it accords a much greater relevance to the age of a witness than is normal in the textual criticism of the New Testament.  I would favor something like: "Most  manuscripts contain the phrase "Son of God," but a couple of important ones do not." Stephen C. Carlson 15:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The current phrasing is still problematic: Thus half of the early texts contain the important phrase, while half do not. The article lists 3 MSS that do not have the text, while listing 1 MSS that does (and 1 that omits the whole verse). Clearly, we can say nothing about 'half' of the manuscripts listed. If we are talking about 4th century MSS, then I guess the statistic is accurate, but still misleading. It is basically saying "There are two surviving 4th century MSS, and they do not agree on this issue". Unless I am completely missing something, I move that we remove the 'half' wording.--Andrew c 06:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, don't pay attention to those dusty old manuscripts: listen to what Mother Church teaches. I have amended the text in line with Mr Carlson's information given above. --Wetman 15:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Earliest Christian art portraying Jesus?
What in the world does this section have to do with the Gospel of Mark? I propose moving this information to a more relevent article.--Andrew c 00:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am removing it as irrelevant and removing the unsourced and POV edits to the paragraph about the Secret Gospel of Mark as well. Eluchil404 00:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

POV
The statement "Those who seek to temper the anti-Semitism in Mark..." assumes that there is antisemitism in Mark. Something with which many would disagree. Srnec 04:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It certainly seems out of place. Looks like someone snuck in a personal comment. Bbagot 01:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

dating Mark
Here are two links: earlychristianwritings.com's entry on Mark and A list of scholar's dating ranges for Mark. I always like citing books more than online articles, however, if a citation is required for the statement about "most scholars accept a range between 60-70" perhaps we could link to one or both of these pages?

The addition about "the evidence against an early dating is in the main due to attributions that prophecy does not occur" is a terrible summary of the scholarship. Read the first link for a number of reasons. The range given, 40-72, is not moderate. 65-80 is. Extreme liberals like Wells would date it after 90, and extreme conservatives would date it in the 40s. Leaving off the extreme views would seem to cover "moderate", not including the earlier dating extremists but not the later.--Andrew c 18:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say moderate is the date range you added in the article, 60-70. 40 is certainly conservative, but many other theologians speculate the 50's are quite possible. This is the only gospel where conservative and liberal dating can actually overlap. Bbagot 01:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot


 * I agree here. (I didn't add the 60-70 range though, that was already in the article. I just reverted the anon's edits). Another thing is, conservatives like to cite the Church fathers (for example with the Hebrew original of Mt). And we have a Church father claiming Mk was written after Peter's death (~65). Like you said, there are still some folk who would like to date Mk even earlier, but hopefully we can agree that it is a minority position. I removed the wording that mentioned conservative and liberal scholars agreeing, but you bring up a good point that this is a case where they happen to agree. Perhaps that wording needs to be put back.-Andrew c 02:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever we do, we need to get our dates to line up. Right now the top of the article says one thing and the information you have written says another -- and that is never a good thing.  If an ancient church father talks about Mark writing after Peter's death, then that needs to find its way into the article.  And yes, a pre 60 date is a minority position.  Among the church those who believe Mark wrote first will usually believe 50's or early 60's, but there is also a fairly large number who believe Matthew was first and that usually pushes it a few years higher so by default, and especially when secular or liberal views are considered, we can safely say pre 60 is minority. Bbagot 05:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot


 * Here is a cut and paste from Gospels. It appears most scholars believe 80 is too late, even according to a source that doesn't follow conservative scholarship.  And, as you can see, he doesn't date the other gospels early.  I've changed the upper date to match Brown's range.


 * The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:


 * Mark: c. 68–73
 * Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; the minority of conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept ::::Mark as the first gospel written.
 * Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85


 * Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:


 * Mark: c. 50's to early 60's, or late 60's
 * Matthew: c. 50 to 70's
 * Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70's to 80's
 * Bbagot 06:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot


 * So I'm confused. 60-80 is a broad range that covers most views (65-80 is the broad range given by earlychristianwritings.com). Brown (who I am more than familiar with) gives a more precise range between 68-73. However, because you found a conservative source that dates Mark earlier, you feel ok to adding 8 years to the range towards the early side (60-73), but you are upset by the idea of adding 7 years to the later side? I still think 60-80 is the best solution, but maybe 65-75 is better? Do you agree that adding too much to the early side, but not the later side, is biased towards conservative dating? How would you propose resolving this.--Andrew c 13:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, 50's to 80 would cover most views. Brown writes largely expressing the views that remove Christian scholarship and thought.  The NIV study Bible is not just a conservative source, it speaks for a large range of Christian scholars and it by no means the only source that cites those dates.  When you mix Brown's 68-73 and add in Christian scholarship, you get 60-73 with beliefs on both sides for other dates (up to 80 or in the 50's with some going even later and earlier). Bbagot 18:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot
 * I think you are still missing my point. You are saying Brown + "Christian" scholarship = 60-73. You are taking someone who is right in the middle then adding a conservative view without balancing it with a liberal view. So why don't we add in the "Jesus Seminar" who has a broad range of diverse Biblical scholars (but tend to have a liberal leaning) and who date Mark to 70-80. So Brown + NIV + JS = 60-80, right? Can you not see that adding only the earlier date is biased?--Andrew c 19:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Does Brown state his view of 68-73 includes Christian thought? I've found most writers when discussing the scholarly concensus leave out Christian scholarship and I assume Brown's figure of 68-73 is based upon his analysis of non-Christian scholarship.  In other words he already includes the Jesus Seminar in finding that 68-73 is the most common view, but does not consider Christian views.  I was adding in Christian Scholarship while taking the less conservative numbers to get a concensus.  The only way 70 will be a midrange is if you go 40-100, in which case there's no sense even making the statement about overall concensus.  I think 60-73 is fair to all if we are going to leave in the section about a concensus.  Bbagot 22:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot
 * Hey guys, here is a link to a website called Bede's Library - it's administrator is a Catholic but he is very even handed and it would be quite a stretch to call him "biased toward conservativism" - which has a comprehensive list of dating and authorship of the books of the New Testament . I would agree with Bbagot that a date of 60-70 represents the range given by the majority of moderate scholars; however, John A.T. Robinson - whom, to my knowledge, was not a Christian - posited extremely early dates. He argued for Matthean priority and a 45-60 date for Mark. Of course, that is quite extreme and earlier than what most conservatives would argue for, and I would not agree with him about anything being pre-60 having any plausibility; yet, there are those like him. Mr Hyde24 00:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Mr Hyde24

Well your problem lies in assuming Brown was summarizing "secular" scholarship. He was a Roman Catholic priest, and he was on the conservative side when it came to Bible scholarship. A quick internet search shows he held strong opinions against anti-supernaturalist bias (plus he is critical of the JS on page 105-106 of his intro to the NT book). You claim that Brown is including the JS in his dating range, but ignoring "Christian" scholarship? I think he is taking both into account to get a middle of the road range of 68-73. In summary, you are taking someone who is middle of the road (conservative leaning) and adding the "Christian" dates (even more conservative) to his range, while ignoring a large part of "liberal" scholarship. I stand by my 60-80 date proposal. Is this not a compromise? This should be about summarizing sources, not personal opinion. Why is 60-67 acceptable, but 74-80 not? We could simply cite Brown as saying he thinks the most likely dates are 68-73. Or we could cite multiple sources, but I felt like giving a range that covered most scholarship was acceptable, however you seem to want to not include the more liberal side of the dating range.--Andrew c 23:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC) re:bede.org.uk. I see no cited sources. It doesn't seem like the so-called "Seeker's guide to the Bible" is summarizing moderate scholarship. (also, it incorrectly claim Papias mentioned Peter's death in relation to when Mark wrote... it was Irenaeus). I'd go to here before I went to bede (which doesn't even give a range, it just says 60).--Andrew c 23:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have websites for Brown that you recommend? His dating for the gospels is not conservative.  I wonder how many scholars go beyond 80?  I'm also wondering if there is a concensus view.  At least based on the information we have right now, perhaps not.  It's a shame because there is a small overlap from about 65 to 68, but I don't think we could make the point it's what most scholars believe.  Perhaps it would be best to just cite the NIV study Bible and earlychristianwritings.com to show a range of different thought.  BTW we no longer have the writings of Papias.  Irenaeus was quoting Papias' works.  Unfortunately most documents of antiquity have long been lost and many are known to us only through quotes in works that we are fortunate enough to still have.

Bbagot 00:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

I work at a university so I have access to a university library (and a large number of books on this topic). However, I don't have any good online sources for Dr. Brown. That said, amazon.com has the "search this book" feature available for his Introduction to the NT. You can search of key phrases and look at select pages. I think we are using different definitions of the word "conservative". I never said Brown's date was ultra-conservative or anything. I said he has strong conservative leanings, and his date is on the slightly conservative side of things, at least when it comes to scholarship of his caliber. I'd say the number of scholars who go past 80 is probably comparable to the number of scholars who go under 60. As for Papias, it was Eusebius who quotes Papias on Markan authorship. Irenaeus' quote on Peter and Paul's death is independent of Papias (or at least no citation is given).--Andrew c 01:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've decided to just change the dates to 60 to 80. It's close enough overall.  It's not worth the squabble.  Looking at Brown's dates for Luke and Matthew though, I think he leans more to moderate liberal when it comes to dating instead of slightly conservative.  I'll take your word on Papias.  I envy you your working environment. Bbagot 02:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot


 * Thank you for changing the dates. Well, Brown is liberal in the sense that he accepts Markan priority (which is a fairly stable and not-so-controversial theory). Brown is just among the also fairly common school of thought that there needs to be time for a) theological development b) distribution of Mk before Mt and Lk are written. People who date Mt and Lk early normally cite things like Matthean priority and Lk's supervision by Paul (pre ~65). I guess this issues lies in the fact that mainstream scholarship is seen to be liberal overall, while Brown is on the conservative side of this mainstream. If that makes sense.


 * Now, nearly all of your recent edits have been very helpful (especially in clearing up some subtle POV). However, your changes to the last sentence regarding Secret Mark are slightly questionable to me. "a number of scholars remain unconvinced that an early, 'Secret' Mark existed before the canonical gospel, and have asserted that the 'Mar Saba letter' is a modern-day forgery." vs. "there are still serious questions regarding its genuineness in other areas. Where and if it should fit in the history of the gospel of Mark is debated." The former is less POV, because it says who is doing the questioning, while the latter is left open and vague (it ignores the POV that some scholars do accept Secret Mark as genuine and probably have answers to the serious question). "serious questions" seems POV. Why not something more like "other scholars question the authenticity of the letter. Its relationship to the gospel of Mark is still debated". I personally liked the older version, but if there are issues I am missing in that, perhaps we can clear them up. And seriously, all your other edits just now were extremely helpful. Thanks.-Andrew c 02:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a pleasure to hear your kind words in regard to my efforts. It does mean a lot to me.  I tried to be diplomatic with Secret Mark.  One of the areas where the previous writing may not have come across properly was the view that most scholars believed the style matched Clement (true) and that therefore the document was authentic in the minds of these scholars (implied in the minds of most readers, and false).  Your suggested wording would still give this impression.  I'll add more information to the Wikipedia article (Secret Mark) at some later time; I believe it's well done, but there is more information that is currently known that the article does not mention.  I'm sure we can come up with some wording that will work.  I may not be around much for the next few days, so hold down the fort and peace to you.  Bbagot 09:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot


 * There is a reference to the audience being gentile because of the negative description of the Sanhedrin. This appears to be POV since Matthew's gospel gives descriptions at least as negative and yet is written to Jews.  Other surrounding statements did not correspond to the audience topic. Bbagot 09:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

bibleverse
There are many direct links to biblegateway. They should be changed to bibleverse which indirectly links to biblegateway. Using bibleverse is easier, smaller and better. If in the future biblegateway ceases to exists, or wikisource provides better bible sources, only the template bibleverse will need to change. Jon513 19:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert of recent edits
A number of the edits were clearly helpful, but I did a partial revert. First of all, the Manual of Style for dates says that AD is not necessary, unless using a range that starts in BC (you don't type AD 1995), and the wikilinks to the specific year articles add clarity (and they themselves don't use AD in their title either). Secondly, wikicode is prefered to hard HTML, so the blockquote elements are not prefered to a simple colon indent. Next, while there is ongoing debate over the bible verses and external links, the bibleverse template is superior because, once on the external site, it allows the user to choose a default translation from about 90 different ones. Forcing the NIV can be POV pushing, and I do not see why NIV is needed in this context. I hope you understand the partial revert, and thank you for your other edits.--Andrew c 12:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A colon indent is not the same as a block quote. A block quote indents both the left and right margin, whereas a colon only indents the left. I changed the "bibleverse" template because I didn't think that it worked with en dashes; but I see that it does. It would be best to go through the article and change the hyphens to en dashes where elision occurs. Is there a way to avoid repeated reference to the book as seen here? For example, Mark 2:10, 28; 8:31, etc. instead of the repetition there now. &mdash;Wayward Talk  15:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See template:bibleverse-nb. I have added this to a number of the cites so that the book name isn't repeated over and over. As for blockquote vs. a colon indent... I do not care that much either way. I mean, yes, the design of a block quote is slightly superior, but I also have strong feelings about keeping html elements out of editable blocks. So its a toss up. If there were wikicode for a full blockquote, that would easily solve it. Also with blockquotes, you have to be careful about adding too many extra blank lines around it because wikipedia automatically codes for line breaks. Anyway, thanks for your imput.--Andrew c 16:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem phrases in the article
There are various passages in the article that I feel need attention.

Lostcaesar 15:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if the intro should give the date, beyond perhaps saying “a first century text”, because the date is disputed and there is a section where this is discussed.
 * The only statement about authorship (rather than location of authorship) is Papias’s quote, which says Mark is the author. However, the article in general assumes Mark is not the author (and says “it is generally assumed by most scholars…”).  Shouldn’t reasons for that be given in the authorship section, with some references?
 * The quote from Morna D. Hooker provides no useful information.
 * The paragraph about a “secret gospel of Mark” is ill-placed. It has nothing to do with the authorship of the Gospel of Mark.  It is also redundant with a mention in the “losses and early editing” section.
 * There are articles on the Two Source Hypothesis, the Q document, and the various theories surrounding this. This article should not try and treat the issue also, but should just inform and direct the reader to the proper place.
 * The location, dating, and to some extent audience all depend on the scholarly opinion on who the author was, and I think the article (if it is to be NPoV) should reflect this in the various sections better.
 * The section on “Sources” is two sentences (and one merely introduces the other). That seems inappropriate for a section unto itself.
 * The same goes for “Mark and the Midrash”
 * Why are there two sections “Mark’s relationship with Q Gospel” and “Mark Priority among Synoptic Gospels”? These should be merged (along with the “sources” section).  As it stands they are confusing and contradictory.
 * Again, in the Characteristics section, the issue of the synoptic problem is taken up. I think this should be purged from the section, and included in the appropriate articles about the Two Source Hypothesis et cetera.
 * I don’t understand the point of the section about the “little apocalypse”. This looks to me like a tossed bone to someone who wanted to us it as an argument for an early date of Mark.  If so, put it back in the Date section and explain.
 * For an article with so many sections and so many assertions, it only has 5 references in footnotes. Much work needs be done there.
 * Date: see the "dating Mark" above this. We reached a consensus on the dates because Mark is the only Gospel where the vast majority of 'liberal' and 'conservative' scholar's dating ranges overlap.
 * References: more references is always a good thing. I'll see if I can't come up with someone.
 * Morna quote: and secret Mark I feel that is is helpful in that it shows the difficulty in determining 100% facts regarding the text. But you are correct that it is just a stray sentence sitting there not connecting to the content surrounding it. It could probably be incorporated better. Same goes for secret Mark. I feel that that paragraph by itself is strong, but does it really deal with authorship? Perhaps move it to "Losses and early editing".
 * Mark's disputed relation with the Q Gospel: this section is weak and probably needs to be moved to the Q article. However, it may be notable to include a very basic summary of this information under a "sources" heading.
 * Characteristics: could you explain your issue with this section a little more?
 * Footnotes: Intext citations is a relatively new thing for wikipedia, and the cite.php coding is also very new (there were other ways to deal with footnotes before). Look at the abundent reference section. In the older days of wikipedia it was acceptable to simply cite your work in the reference section without intext citations. So now that the citing has got stricter, we have a problem of having to go through all the references and finding page numbers etc. Look through the featured articles sometime and notice how some don't have ANY footnotes, yet still are featured. This is because the criteria was different in the past. Today, an article cannot get FA status without the intext cites. So I agree it needs work, but I wouldn't say that this article is unsourced.
 * 2SH: I'm not sure if this is getting at, but are you suggesting we are giving undue weight to the 2SH? Because the 2SH is the most common solution to the synoptic problem, I'm not sure we need to purge all references to it. We do need to keep in mind balance, and we need to remember that in order to be NPoV we cannot show the AH/GH as equal to the 2SH if the 2SH is held by more scholars (which it is). We definately need to have both views, but also be conscious of undue weight issues as well.
 * Thanks for your input. I'm sorry you keep running into me due to our shared interests in wikipedia. But despite our different perspectives, whatever they may be, I feel we work pretty well together. I just wish more people were active on these articles in order to have more collaboration.
 * -Andrew c 15:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing a major overhaul, rather I think the article contains good information but is disorganized and confused. Hence I think it needs reorganization, with its dangling sections and redundant information smoothed.  I am not particularly interested in removing information; rather I would like to organize existing information (though I did identify a couple things that just seemed irrelevant).  I think that some reduction might be beneficial only where a topic treated here has its own article which is better articulated, though a nice mentioning of the issue, brief treatment, and a link would be most welcomed.  As to the Characteristics section, I suppose I am trying to understand its intent.  For example, it includes this as a “characteristic”: “Mark is possibly the easiest gospel recognizable as an artistic creation of a particular culture of people at a particular period in the ancient world. ” Huh?  What’s that doing there?  As for the 2HS, this is what I am getting at: though there is a section on “authorship”, there is really very little information there about how and by whom the text was penned.  Just a quote fro Papias.  There are other sections on date, audience, sources, and the like – all of which have to take up the authorship issue in one way or another because they depend on theories of authorship.  In other words, theories of authorship frame most topics included in the article.  Ergo, I think the article lacks a clear theme throughout these sections because the authorship section is insufficent.  If I were to propose something, I would suggest that the authorship section be given a more detailed explination of scholarship and then used to frame the following sections.  Let me say here that I am confortable with the article giving primacy of place to Marcan priroty and the 2SH because that reflects the majority opinion of current scholarship (even though I am in the minority).  I don’t think the minority position can ask for majority priviledges, nor do I want to turn an encyclopedia into a place for arcane scholarly debates and theories.  But, I think the traditional view should be employed in this section to an extent, not just because it is well represented academically, but because of its historical significance.  Thus I see it as a necessary element to framing the discussion, even if it is just to bounce modern revisions off of it.  For example, if one is going to quote Papias as an authority on the authorship of Mark (or at least a worthy mention), shouldn’t the fact that Papias thought Mark came after Matthew be a useful factor in framing the discussion?  My point is, I really think the article would be better organized if it followed a theme based on theories of authorship, since so many sections in the article hinge on that issue and treat it in one way or another.  As for the date, I don’t want to relive a long debate; and this was a rather minor point of mine.   I simply thought, for the sake of consistency, since the article has a section where the scholarly and historical view of the date are treated, with differing positions being taken, the intro might want to avoid the matter if possible.  But I think its current reading is fine.  P.S., your insights are most welcomed, and I too wish that we had more collaboration and collegality, as I think such is necessary if an article is to be as objective and NPoV as possible. Lostcaesar 16:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization
The overwhelming majority of my changes were to either add information or relocate it. Sometimes moving text resulted in redundancies, and these were omitted. The few other omissions are mentioned below. I added some references for the passage mentioned in the "Content" section. I included a few more citations from Church fathers, and other links. I also moved some subordinate comments and information to the references section. I think the section on "losses and early editing" needs more information, and its new structure should allow for that. It at least flows better now. The previous quote of Papias was unreferenced, I referenced the quote from my Penguin Classics edition (and its translator), and took out the cryptic comment on the previous translation since it no longer applied. I made some minor changes to the characteristics section to remove a very mild bias. As for the omissions, I include quote and commentary below:

Removed

Furthermore, Papias' comment does not make it clear that the Mark of whom he spoke is the author of the canonical gospel which bears that name
 * I think our readers are intelligent enough to know this (unrefrenced) fact on their own. We don't need to state the obvious every time a quote is given.

''All we can say with certainty, therefore, is that the gospel was composed somewhere in the Roman Empire—a conclusion that scarcely narrows the field at all!"
 * A wordy way to say a simple and obvious thought. The article still contains the thought, just not the quote.

Additionally, tradition holds that Mark was written after the death of Paul and Peter in Rome, who were both killed during Nero's reign.
 * This was unnecessary since Irenaeus and the persecution were already well discussed, and since specifics on Peter and Paul are not relevant here.

Jesus seems to be also talking about the End of the world:
 * Says whom? This was just a floating thought.

(At the same time, there is a translation issue that affects the intent: the article "the" is not present in Greek MSS; it was instead added to English translations for flow and compatibility with Church doctrine. "A Son of God" would also be a correct translation, as would the omission the article entirely.)
 * Greek articles work a bit differently than English articles, to compare the two languages without discussing this grammatical difference is misleading. I preserved the point and clarified this in a footnote.

I also cut out the few sentences on an Aramaic Matthew (not the place for this).Lostcaesar 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)